Newt strikes back!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CAnnoneer

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,838
Location
Los Angeles County, CA
Finally somebody to come out and say the truth. I joined Ann Coulter's mailing list and here is what I got. Enjoy!

P.S. Does it take one to retire from active political life before they can say things straight?



Making English Our National Language Is Not Racist

Dear Friend,

If by chance you were watching C-SPAN's coverage of the United States Senate last Thursday afternoon, you heard something truly offensive.

I had just arrived in Miami for a speech to a group of industry and technology leaders when I heard that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had called a proposal to establish English as our national language "racist."

Stop and think about that for a moment, because chances are, when Senator Reid said that, he called you a racist.

Using the 'R-Word'

Ninety percent of us believe that someone should be able to read and write English in order to be an American citizen. Seventy-eight percent of all immigrant families want their children to learn English. And with his statement on the floor of the United States Senate, Senator Reid called every one of us who think this way a racist.

It's important to know that the measure the Senate was considering didn't address what language we speak in our homes, in our businesses or in any aspect of our private lives. It simply and straightforwardly stated that the government "shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language."

In fact, from my point of view, the measure had one great shortcoming: It didn't end the mandate for bilingual ballots that I wrote about a couple weeks ago. The federal government currently requires some counties to print ballots and other election materials in foreign languages -- a mandate which is, to say the least, a little curious. If someone must learn English to be a citizen, and only citizens can vote, why is there a need for bilingual ballots?

Such is the level of dishonesty in today's immigration debate.

Thirty-Four Senators Oppose English as Our National Language

But it gets worse.

Despite the fact that the measure simply stated the obvious -- that English has been and should remain the language of our democracy -- and despite the fact that it required that new Americans also understand the Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance and American history as part of citizenship, 34 Senators voted against it.

Thirty-four votes against preserving English as our national language. It's hard to think of a time in American history when Washington elites have been more out of touch with the American people. While 90% of Americans believe in English as the glue that preserves our nation and a force that generates our prosperity, the intellectual elite have contempt for them. They also have contempt for learning the basic ideas and principles of America's founding and for learning about the individual Americans who helped shape the very institutions of our civilization.

Adding Insult to Injury

And to add insult to injury, the same day that 34 Senators voted against making English our national language, many of the same Senators voted to give Social Security benefits to people who have been working here illegally.

It really defies comprehension. This is the same group that won't save Social Security for younger Americans -- the same crowd that stood and applauded when the President acknowledged during his State of the Union Address that his plan to rescue Social Security and give younger Americans a better and more secure retirement had failed.

With this vote, the Senate made itself complicit in one of the great and tragic truths of our immigration system: Lawbreaking leads to more lawbreaking. People who have entered our country illegally have already broken the law once. And when they use fraudulent documents to obtain employment -- or when employers illegally fail to require documentation -- the law is broken again. The vote to give Social Security benefits for illegal work -- just like the vote to give amnesty for illegal entry -- is a vote to encourage more lawbreaking.

'In Every Facet an American'

For 400 years, people who believe their rights come from God have been building a free and prosperous society in America. We have been open to people of many backgrounds and many languages, but we have insisted that they become American.

Theodore Roosevelt put it best: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against such men because of creed or birthplace origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American."

We must return to this great tradition of being a welcoming nation, but being one nation, under God, and indivisible.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
 
I can guess how my two twits voted, but where can I find a record of the vote to see if they fooled me for once?
 
I've been promoting Newt for President to everyone I know. Now he just writes a letter with one of my favorite Teddy Roosevelt quotes. Newt ain't perfect, but his historical perspective is what is needed in Washington. We can't be what we are unless we remember what we have been.

We can focus on our warts, which is what the left is prone to do. Or, better we can focus on what we can be, based upon those things that make us great.

There is a great assault upon our language, our culture and our borders. We need to demand that our elected officials represent us.

I sent an e mail to my two senators explaining that they have done nothing at all that benefits America, American citizens, legal immigrants, and the security of our culture and our borders. I suggested the entire Senate ought to resign because of their non, mal and misfeasance. I also suggested if they did not have the courage to do that, they need to secure our borders now! That now is not the time for "comprehensive" anything. We need focus and the focus is our border security. We can deal with the rest of it later.
 
I've been promoting Newt for President to everyone I know.

Newt began his political career when he was a professor at a university in my hometown of Carrollton, GA.
He got elected to the US House of Representatives as a Republican at a time when Georgia was run by Democrats. He did this by saying "I know I'm a Republican, but that's just a label, I'm just like you".
Once he was elected, though, he started referring to all Democrats as "liberals", and started using the word like it was an insult. He is the guy who made "liberal" a bad word, and made "liberal" synonymous with "evil and stupid". In other words, that's what the ingrate called the voters who put him in office. (keep in mind most of these folks were moderate to conservative Democrats ala Sam Nunn).
Newt ran for re-election on family values. That really played in my hometown area, so he won re-election. Immediately after that he left his wife of many years for a younger female staffer he'd been having an affair with.
To make matters worse, his wife was deathly ill with cancer, and was undergoing chemotherapy in a local hospital. So Newt served her with the divorce papers in the hospital.
During and after the divorce, Mr. "family values" decided he didn't have to pay child support. So he stopped paying.
His ex-wife, having survived cancer, had to hire a lawyer to get Mr. "family values" aka Mr. "deadbeat dad" aka Mr. "you hicks who elected me are idiots I am God" to pay for the care of his own children.
Despite his arrogance and behavior, the Georgia democratic party did not think Newt was beatable because most of his district had become dominated by the GOP (either by Reagan Democrats' conversion or by Northerners who moved to Atlanta suburbs on the edge of the district). However, a political unknown, David Worley, ran against Newt with no support and no money. I think Newt outspent him 10 to 1 or more.
Newt won in a recount of a vote by less than 1%.
After that, Newt had the district lines re-drawn. The most important thing he wanted was to be out of the district where he was from. He did not want to run for re-election in the town where he, his daughters, and his wife lived. He knew if he ran where people knew him, he was toast.
After that, Newt ran for re-election in a new district in a wealthy Atlanta suburb, where most voters were Northern transplants and were likely to be GOP voters.
By the way, the mistress he married? He dumped her about a decade or so later, for another younger female staffer. Right after an election.
That is the guy you want to be president. I know him. I know lots of people who know him. I went to high school with his daughter. His wife was a teacher at my high school. He has no morals, and thinks less of his voters than he does of his wives. Vote for him at your peril.
-David

Edited to add: Here's an interview with Gingrich from 1984 that backs ups alot of what I laid out:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1984/11/osborne.html
 
P.S. Does it take one to retire from active political life before they can say things straight?

You will be hearing and seeing a lot more Newt the closer we get to November. Ane he IS trying to position himself for 2008.

Edited to add: Here's an interview with Gingrich from 1984 that backs ups alot of what I laid out:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...1/osborne.html

You can't really use Mother Jones as a source about somebody like Newt! That's like saying Hillary Clinton is bad because you read it in the National Review!

I don't doubt that Newt has a "messy" personal life. But I don't want him to date my daughter. This insistence on candidates with snow white personal lives eliminates about 98% of the possible pool. Really smart and really driven people attract lots of "friends." Sooner or later that gets you in trouble with sex or drugs or something.

The question has to be would Newt be a President whose policies I could live with? Compared to just about anybody else with a real chance to win, he looks like the preferred candidate. The left hates him just as much as the right hates Hillary so that should tell you something. Nobody accuses the Newt of being a RINO. He's very smart, very well educated, and very ruthless about undermining his opponents. That's not a bad thing if he is on your side!

Would I rather see Senator Coburn or J.C. Watts as President? Do I think they are "better people?" Would I rather have one of them as a weekend guest? Yes to all three but Coburn will never do it and J.C. isn't ready yet. He sure would be a fun VP candidate though! That would be a ticket to run against Hillary!

Gingrich and Watts for 2008!

(If you've never gotten to go to a live event and see J.C. speak in person, you are missing out. They say politicians aren't "real people." Maybe that's one of the reasons J.C. walked away. That and he wanted to position himself for something higher than Representative. I would pay money to have J.C. come spend a week at my house!)

Gregg
 
grampster said:
I've been promoting Newt for President to everyone I know. Now he just writes a letter with one of my favorite Teddy Roosevelt quotes. Newt ain't perfect, but his historical perspective is what is needed in Washington. We can't be what we are unless we remember what we have been. ...

<sigh> and here I just posted in another thread that I didn't expect the Republican party to do anything that could regain my vote. I guess I'll have to wait till '08 to see if Newt runs, then I'll have to rethink that position.
 
You can't really use Mother Jones as a source about somebody like Newt! That's like saying Hillary Clinton is bad because you read it in the National Review!


He is the only Republican I would vote for.


Fellas, google Newt Gingrich, and you'll find everything Motherjones said was true. In their profile they quote Newt's friends and Newt himself. Its not commentery they cite; its fact.
This guy has done nothing but lie cheat and steal.
Fact: He ran on "family values", then served his cancer-ridden wife with divorce papers in the hospitl so he could marry one of his many lovers.
Fact: He failed to pay child support for his kids and his wife had to sue him to collect. And he bitched and moaned about paying any amount.
Fact: Just after another election he left wife number 2, for another younger mistress.
Y'all vote for who you want. But this guy is a lying scumbag.
When somebody asks to have their district re-drawn so they won't have to run where people know them, that ought to tell you something.
-David
 
cookekdjr

i will not disagree with anything you (basicly all polliticians are evil) said except:
1st:
"Once he was elected, though, he started referring to all Democrats as "liberals", and started using the word like it was an insult. He is the guy who made "liberal" a bad word, and made "liberal" synonymous with "evil and stupid". In other words, that's what the ingrate called the voters who put him in office. (keep in mind most of these folks were moderate to conservative Democrats ala Sam Nunn). "
2nd:
"so he won re-election."

So maybe it does not prove evil but appearently he was right about the stupid part!:neener:
 
Frankly, I don't care how many interns he bangs, so long as he does things right for the country. This idea that we need saints to govern us is not serious, to put it mildly.

And yes, leftists are both evil and stupid. Is that even in question?
 
Frankly, I don't care how many interns he bangs, so long as he does things right for the country. This idea that we need saints to govern us is not serious, to put it mildly.

And yes, leftists are both evil and stupid. Is that even in question?


1. The problem wasn't that he cheated on his wife. The problem was, he ran on a platform of family values while cheating on his wife, then he abandoned his wife in the hospital and refused to pay child support. In other words, he was a lying hypocrite who refused to take care of his own wife and children. In other words, he doesn't care about those who love him the most, only himself.
That kind of person will NEVER do right for anyone, especially their country, and its the LAST person you want to make the most powerful man in the world. ("He treated me like family" should be a compliment about your president, I think).
2. Its just stupid to say the left is stupid and evil. There are many smart conservatives who are good people, just as their are smart liberals who are good people. By the way, LBJ started the social welfare programs of the "great society" and his "war on poverty" (including headstart pre-kindergarden programs) while fighting the Vietnam War. And he did it all with a balanced budget. We cannot name a Republican who had a balanced budget while fighting a war since when...? My point is, the GOP controls the House, the Senate, the White House, the governors....if conservatives are so smart and so good why can't they balance a checkbook?
Maybe they don't have all the answers after all.
 
Frankly, I don't care how many interns he bangs, so long as he does things right for the country. This idea that we need saints to govern us is not serious, to put it mildly.
Wrong! If you're willing to betray your wife it is easy to betray your country.
To quote that Great American Philosopher, J.R Ewing:
One you give up your integrity the rest is easy.
 
Newt has great ideas but he would get eaten alive in a campaign.

His lack of discretion in his personal life would sink him.

Ironic that the left would support President Clinton who may very well be a rapist yet jump at the chance to castigate Newt for his womanizing.

The problem was, he ran on a platform of family values while cheating on his wife
I am not quite sure if Newt ran on a family values platform. He was more a Contract With America kind of guy. Clinton benefitted from the fiscal policies of those congresses.

We have our work cut out for us defending the Republicans.

cookekdjr, you have a Herculean task defending the Dems and the leftists who are now the base. You guys are letting the inmates run the asylum.
 
Its just stupid to say the left is stupid and evil.

Mmmkay, I am game.

Leftists believe in a kumbaya world where people stop being people but become a form of ants - selfless, obedient, incorruptible, and industrious to the extreme. Anybody who has met Homo Sapiens knows that is a preposterously impractical idea. But, others said they needed solid proof. Apparently 70 years of USSR's rise and fall is still not solid enough for any true leftist. If one ignores reality and persists in idiotic ideas, isn't fair to say perhaps one is simply stupid or makes oneself stupid?

Leftists believe that their world is achievable if only they take from the rich and give to the poor, if necessary at gun point. That is theft, robbery, and murder if you resist. Leftists are happy to undermine and slander anybody who stands up to them, including calling him "racist", "fascist", "nazi", etc. That's deception and defamation. Leftists want to limit people's rights, to free them and others. That is tyranny. So, we have established that leftists stand for theft, robbery, murder, deception, defamation, and tyranny. Why is it not fair to call them evil?

Please explain.
 
Wrong! If you're willing to betray your wife it is easy to betray your country.

On the other hand, GWB is still married, but he betrayed his conservative base and broke his promises for small government and fiscal responsibility. Family values don't seem to buy us much security in the choice of leaders.
 
CAnnoneer,
Your concept of the left is, well, wrong.
Yeah, there are alot of left-wing nuts. There are right-wing nuts, too.
I lean left. I do not believe in a "kumbaya" world. I believe in a world where the strong will usually exploit the weak if left unchecked. That is, the rich will always exploit the poor, and predators will exploit children. I want government to protect children, old folks, veterans, and working families.
To help in this I became a prosecutor. I've spent years prosecuting child molesters, rapists and murderers. Since I've moved to the federal side I've gone after crooked cops and internet child predators.
I don't like a government that spends more than it makes in taxes. And I don't like a government that taxes a working family so much that they can't pay their bills or improve their situtation.
The conservatives have been in power since 2001. They hold the White House, the House and Senate, the Supreme Court and the majority of governors and legislatures. During their tenure, 80% of American households have had a decline of income every year.
Yet, the richest 20% of families have gotten richer every year. The richest 1% has done great. The real rich have done incredibly well. Why?
Because a conservative government "conserves" the status quo, the baseline of existence if government did not step in to make life more fair. Conservatism returns human life to the law of the jungle. Either you are predator or prey. It turns out that most of us are prey.
So...I guess you are in the 20% who have done better. Or you like being prey.:)
-David
 
Well said cookekdjr.

I think Ann Coulter is a nutjob.
Don't know too much about Newt. Seems like a pretty smart guy though. That's either really good; or really bad.


Thanks, Jesse. You know, I have alot of conservative friends who fear government control and intervention in their lives (well, really they fear government control of their weapons and money. mostly money).
I think the misconception is, that we'll never have people controlling us. We always will. The question is, who do you want in control? The government, or Wal-mart? (Or Exxon or Microsoft or some other corporation?). Corporations have a duty to the shareholders, not the citizenry (and without government supervision, by the way, they can screw the shareholders and keep all of it for the few guys running the show,i.e., Enron before they were prosecuted).
I guess my point is we'll never be completely free. The question is, do you want the power concentrated with rich men devoted to keeping the rich richer, or do you want the power concentrated in a government divided into three branches that is bound by a constitution and answerable to the citizenry? (with a second amendment that makes them stay honest. Nothing guarantees a free and fair election like an armed electorate- that is the biggest issue where the left has it all wrong).
Oh, and Newt is smart. Very very smart. Which is why he is so dangerous. If he weren't good at lying and rhetoric, he would never would have been elected.
-David
 
I believe in a world where the strong will usually exploit the weak if left unchecked. That is, the rich will always exploit the poor,

Here you have to explain to us what you mean by "exploitation". Do you believe added value is unfair? Do you believe workers should own the means of their production? You have to be specific.

I want government to protect old folks, veterans, and working families.

Protect them from what and how? At whose expense? Again, be specific. Also, don't mix sexual crimes with economics and politics. It contributes nothing to the current discussion.

I don't like a government that taxes a working family so much that they can't pay their bills or improve their situtation.

Please give an example how taxes alone is what crushes the back of working families. Many if not most people in this country make about 25k an year. At that level, they pay very little tax. Check the charts.

The conservatives have been in power since 2001. They hold the White House, the House and Senate, the Supreme Court and the majority of governors and legislatures. During their tenure, 80% of American households have had a decline of income every year. Yet, the richest 20% of families have gotten richer every year. The richest 1% has done great. The real rich have done incredibly well. (etc.)

Those in power now are NOT conservative. They are profiteer RINO globalist corporatists that pay only lip service to conservative values, to rile up their base before elections. So, your entire argument is poorly predicated. Talk to a real conservative and hear what they have to say about the gangsters in charge.
 
The question is, who do you want in control? The government, or Wal-mart? (Or Exxon or Microsoft or some other corporation?). Corporations have a duty to the shareholders, not the citizenry (and without government supervision, by the way, they can screw the shareholders and keep all of it for the few guys running the show,i.e., Enron before they were prosecuted).
And the question of the future to be answered by libertarians and statists of all stripe, what are the rules when government contracts goernmental functions to the private sector. I fear we are assuming the characteristics of a fascist state where the private sector own property but the govt plans and direct its utilization. Take a gander at Richard Haass' article on limiting nation state sovereignty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top